Carolina vs New England last play

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

The philosophy I've been taught (again at the NCAA level but as JRut states likely comes from the NFL) is if a pass is underthrown and a separate player intercepts the ball, the contact behind him is ignored.

Regardless how far behind/beyond him? Or how much time between? If so, that philosophy materially changes the rule!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Regardless how far behind/beyond him? Or how much time between? If so, that philosophy materially changes the rule!

No it doesn't. You just do not understand the philosophy. Hardly any rule does not have some kind of philosophy as to how to rule on something. Officials at the higher levels tend to understand that better than guys you work high school. High school officials often do not have the same level of training or scrutiny or accountability.

Peace

[zm1283]

I want you guys in the "No DPI" camp on the NE/Carolina play to watch this play starting at the 4:00 mark in the video:

GameDay: Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots highlights - NFL Videos

The Denver receiver is running a "go" route straight down the field. Talib for NE does hold the receiver, but Manning severely underthrows the ball and there is zero chance the receiver would have caught it. It gets intercepted, but they stick with the holding call.

How is this any different than last week's play? I thought if the ball was underthrown and not catchable by the offensive player and it was intercepted, they "philosophy" was to ignore the defensive penalty. When Talib catches Manning's underthrown pass he is eight yards in front of the receiver who was running the complete opposite direction.

Edit: Go to 5:20 and watch the PI no-call when the Patriots have the ball in OT also. How is that not DPI?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by zm1283

It gets intercepted, but they stick with the holding call.

How is this any different than last week's play?

Holding is not subject to the pass being catchable, it doesn't even require the ball to be thrown.

If a hold occurs prior to the ball being thrown, it is a hold. If it is while the ball is in the air, it is pass interference.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by zm1283

Edit: Go to 5:20 and watch the PI no-call when the Patriots have the ball in OT also. How is that not DPI?

I would probably have DPI on this at the level of ball I work. My guess is that they deemed the contact as incidental to the defensive play being made. Not saying I agree with that but it's my best guess.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I would probably have DPI on this at the level of ball I work. My guess is that they deemed the contact as incidental to the defensive play being made. Not saying I agree with that but it's my best guess.

I think it is a miss. Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

I think it is a miss. Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

Agree on both points.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The first play in question has nothing to do with the play we are discussing in this thread. The play you are showing is a clear hold for a jersey grab that clearly restricts the movement of the receiver to go up field. The legs of the receiver clearly are stopped or altered in order to keep the defender in an advantageous position. And that is why it was called. The Gronk play had no restriction in the movement if you look at his legs. He did not change direction or stopped completely. If no arms were around Gronk, you would not even think to call a foul. That is why that play is not the same as the play last week.

But he eventually does go up field and the ball is thrown nowhere near him.

The contention that Gronk was not restricted at all is not universally shared. Even some officials (Some at very high levels) don't agree with you.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Rich

Just like it was a miss when they let Brady run all over the field screaming at everyone afterwards.

I do not think that is a miss, I think they are more tolerant of players and coaches at that level.

Peace

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I do not think that is a miss, I think they are more tolerant of players and coaches at that level.

Peace

Maybe so, but they shouldn't be. He was out of control and made them look bad.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by zm1283

I want you guys in the "No DPI" camp on the NE/Carolina play to watch this play starting at the 4:00 mark in the video:

GameDay: Denver Broncos vs. New England Patriots highlights - NFL Videos

The Denver receiver is running a "go" route straight down the field. Talib for NE does hold the receiver, but Manning severely underthrows the ball and there is zero chance the receiver would have caught it. It gets intercepted, but they stick with the holding call.

How is this any different than last week's play? I thought if the ball was underthrown and not catchable by the offensive player and it was intercepted, they "philosophy" was to ignore the defensive penalty. When Talib catches Manning's underthrown pass he is eight yards in front of the receiver who was running the complete opposite direction.

Edit: Go to 5:20 and watch the PI no-call when the Patriots have the ball in OT also. How is that not DPI?

The first play in question has nothing to do with the play we are discussing in this thread. The play you are showing is a clear hold for a jersey grab that clearly restricts the movement of the receiver to go up field. The legs of the receiver clearly are stopped or altered in order to keep the defender in an advantageous position. And that is why it was called. The Gronk play had no restriction in the movement if you look at his legs. He did not change direction or stopped completely. If no arms were around Gronk, you would not even think to call a foul. That is why that play is not the same as the play last week.

The second play to me is just a miss. Just like there was a miss on an earlier play in that game, it is another miss. That play has nothing to do with we are talking about on any level. I do not know what level you work, but with better athletes there are times when a play happens so fast you are not completely sure and you do not call anything (which most supervisors want). They would rather have you miss a tight play than call something that clearly was not there. Many high school and lower level officials thank every time there is some contact we have to have something. There is contact in football and this was just a close play to rule on. We do not always get them right, it is OK.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by zm1283

How is this any different than last week's play? I thought if the ball was underthrown and not catchable by the offensive player and it was intercepted, they "philosophy" was to ignore the defensive penalty. When Talib catches Manning's underthrown pass he is eight yards in front of the receiver who was running the complete opposite direction.

There have NEVER been two plays that are EXACTLY alike in ANY game that has ever been played, much less in different games, in different locations, in different cities, observed by different, extremely competent, officials. A lot of plays may perceived by many as "being similar" but officials understand that each play is unique, as it unflods in front of their eyes.

Precise consistency of play to play, game to game, week to week is an impossibility, why would there be any expectation that judgments regarding what happens during these plays, would be any more consistent than the plays themself?

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There have NEVER been two plays that are EXACTLY alike in ANY game that has ever been played, much less in different games, in different locations, in different cities, observed by different, extremely competent, officials. A lot of plays may perceived by many as "being similar" but officials understand that each play is unique, as it unflods in front of their eyes.

Precise consistency of play to play, game to game, week to week is an impossibility, why would there be any expectation that judgments regarding what happens during these plays, would be any more consistent than the plays themself?

I didn't say they were ever "exactly" alike. I asked how they are different in regards to the philosophy of "The ball wasn't catchable by the receiver and fell short of its target so we ignore pass interference".